Sunday, May 29, 2016

Louise Mensch and I continue to debate anti-semitism, Ann Coulter, and the #AltRight on Heat Street:

Louise Mensch: So you don’t care that the left was correct about your racism and sexism?

Vox Day: We don’t care what they say or what they think, at all.

Louise Mensch: You obviously do care because you’re employing tactics against this, you’ve just described.

Vox Day: No, we don’t care what they do or what they think, but we are certainly engaged in a cultural rhetorical war against them, but we don’t care what they think about us. We’re their enemy, they’re our enemy, and that’s fine.

Louise Mensch: But you’re not employing this against the enemy. I never see these memes employed against the left, ever. I only see them employed against people on the right. John Podhoretz, Ben Shapiro, Cathy Young, people who are 100% on the right. You don’t seem to bother with anyone of the left. Not that … By the way, God forbid that should be taken as an encouragement to go off to burn Hillary supporters with this stuff, but it’s red on red fire.

Vox Day: I’m pretty sure they get sent to anyone who attacks them.

Louise Mensch: You’ve put Ann Coulter in a difficult position, because she has said, not convincingly at all, that she isn’t anti-Semitic. And you’ve just described how …

Vox Day: I don’t believe she is anti-Semitic.

Louise Mensch: Right …

Vox Day: She’s not anti-Semitic.

Louise Mensch: … but then a whole bunch of anti-Semites are running to her defense by tweeting Holocaust cartoons at Jews?

Vox Day: That’s what you’re not understanding is that the fact that one is not anti-Semitic does not mean that you have any obligation whatsoever to disavow anyone.

Louise Mensch: Ann Coulter though, is being defended by a bunch of anti-Semites who as their weapon use anti-Semitism. In order to try and prove she’s not anti-Semitic, that’s not very helpful, is it?

Vox Day: Well, but again I don’t think that that’s the objective or the concern.

Louise Mensch: Do you guys even have an objective?

Vox Day: Absolutely.

Louise Mensch: What is it?

Vox Day: The chief objective for … I probably … I don’t speak for the entire alt-right because the alt-right doesn’t have leaders, but I am alt-right, and my objective is the preservation of Western civilization.

I’m afraid I wasted my time in trying to follow yet another debate about anti-Semitism, but I never did understand what they were debating about. While America has a small number of genuine anti-Semites (under any definition of the term), they are pretty well irrelevant. As Irving Kristol once said, America is a safer and generally more pleasant place for Jews than Israel is ever likely to be. Now of course there are organizations, mostly but not all Jewish, that equate any criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, but serious people, including Kristol, found that absurd.

There are of course places where there is real anti-Semitism, but most of them are Semitic now that the National Socialists no longer rule Germany. Fascism isn’t even anti-Semitic although the Nazi’s (who weren’t really Fascists) were. Mussolini had many high ranking Jews in his Fascist regime right up until he gave up trying to prevent the Anschluss with Austria and made alliance with Hitler. At Hitler’s insistence he began persecuting Jews, but it was not part of the Fascist – rods and axe – agenda until imposed by Germany.

But Islam certainly is anti-Jewish, right down to their Holy Koran; since many Islamic nations are Semitic – certainly not all, since neither Persians nor Kurds nor Turks are Semitic – the term anti-Semitic has more political meaning than descriptive accuracy, and is rather useless in rational debate – but on a practical level anti-Semitic in the Middle East means anti-Jewish, and at least to those who believe the Koran, means war to the knife. After the end of days, the rocks will cry out, O Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him. Now that’s anti-Semitic. Only of course the Muslim who is to do the killing is likely to be a Semite.

Adding to the confusion is the very real problem I mentioned in the debate, which is that the only thing as potential dangerous to the Jewish population in the United States as 1940s-era German-style anti-semitism is insufficient anti-semitism. After all, DNA is destiny.

I am not sure that she is paying close attention or listening very well when she makes statements about how the Left is correct about Vox's racism and sexism. At least as she is defining the terms. Using the terms to shut down debate, vs using the terms to discuss honestly those topics are two different definitions imo.

I find I employ the Clinton statement where he said it depends on what the definition of is is more and more as I read both here and elsewhere.

I'm not going to testify to how good or bad Vox did. He knows his stuff, and I don't know his aims - he doesn't need my judgment.

I will say it's a little frustrating to read someone who's cockily, arrogantly attacking Vox, the alt right, etc, and seeing Vox holding his fire and largely going on defense. On the other hand, I suspect that if Vox gave as good as he's getting, this exchange would have ended immediately.

That said, her desire to completely avoid talking about Israel in a discussion about anti-semitism - when one of her salvos is 'Ann Coulter said she's sick of people talking about Israel, that's anti-semitic' is priceless. And Vox's line about how if Europeans and Jews are the same then Israel has no claim to Israel was brilliant.

She's talking about the right of conquest? Alright. Whose right would that be? Apparently not the Jews. She must mean the British and the French and, oh, I suppose also the Turks.

Vox Day: The chief objective for … I probably … I don’t speak for the entire alt-right because the alt-right doesn’t have leaders, but I am alt-right, and my objective is the preservation of Western civilization.

You’ve never been uni-cultural except when your people held the land and there was nobody else here.

So America was uni-cultural prior to the whites arrival? Most tribes in Americas didn't get along very well. They had different cultures. Weren't the Sioux and Pawnee rather blood enemies? I'd bet the Huron and Apache couldn't even understand one another.

Somewhat on topic: I just came across this [H/T Ex-Army]:Probably a page from a recent Captain America comic book.Some background; 'The Red Skull' was Capt. America's original nemesis, the Nazi version of him.Read his little speech, who can disagree with it? As upside down as things have gotten, who sounds more like a hero? The only thing I would change would have been to write that last panel as (((VULTURES))) and (((BANKERS))).

Abraham, Issac and Jacob were not Jews. Pharisees and Sadducees are not to be found in the Old Testament.

Our English word, Jew, is a translation of the O.T. Hebrew for a person from the tribe of Judah and from the N.T. Greek for a Judean or a person from Judea.

When God changed Jacob’s name to Israel his 12 sons became the 12 tribes of Israel.The Kingdom of Israel ceased to exist in 720 BC. Only the tribes of Judah and Benjamin remained of the Southern Kingdom.

The modern, secular state that calls itself Israel is not Israel. They are not entitled to take all the land from “the river in Egypt to the Euphrates River” Genesis 15:18

For the record: Amerigo Vespucci was an Italian (as should be obvious from the name) explorer, financier, navigator and cartographer who worked for both Spain and Portugal and played a prominent part in early discovery and exploration of the New World.

if you notice, Mensch is the adopted Jewish version of Sarah Hoyt's adopted Americanism.

personally aware that they are NOT natively of their adopted cultures, they compensate via ludicrous displays of hyper-acculturation.

this is how you get Hoyt making asinine assertions that she was "born more American" than most natives. it's compensation over what she knows ( and is reminded of, every day ) about not being of the native population herself.

"Sorry, can I just talk for a second?" Isn't that special. Pretending you're interrupting her whilst interrupting you.

Significantly, her interruption came right after Vox made the most significant point of the entire immigration debate:

...small minorities and exceptions are very very different than turning the entire system into a giant tribal power, a tribal political spoils game. And that is the problem that the United States is facing...

Almost as if she couldn't allow that statement a chance to sink into her audience, she had to jump in and distract everyone with another topic.

Ok, so this hasn't even really been a debate. It's much more of a hostile interview with the interviewer doing a lot of interjecting.

This. After the third go-round, it became clear that there's just no debating Mensch, since she's resolutely uninterested in doing anything other than confirming her prejudices and reciting basic-bitch cuckservative talking points.

The Jews are both, uniquely, in the United Nations, both a racial and a religious group.

And how'd that happen? Talk about "privilege". And yet...

There is no distinction between Europeans and Jews.

Very clever, they can have it both ways, depending upon which is more advantageous at the moment. Reminds me of Jim Kalb on Feminism:

"Feminism" means so many different things that it appears to mean very little. Its advocates constantly contradict each other and themselves. In casting off feminine reserve and modesty they seem to have learned intellectual shamelessness as well. Rather than damaging feminism, its incoherence offers an easy defense against criticism: whatever the complaint, the response is that it misses the mark because feminism is really something else.

And, again, Otto Weininger (from Wikipedia, for quick reference; if anything, this may misrepresent Weininger's views to make him more sympathetic to Jews):

...analyzes the archetypal Jew as feminine, and thus profoundly irreligious, without true individuality (soul), and without a sense of good and evil. ... Weininger decries the decay of modern times, and attributes much of it to feminine (or identically, "Jewish") influences.

by your light, we should be trying to attract as many Ashkenazi Jews as we possibly can to come in and save a country of more stupid white people.

What do you mean "we"...? And apparently she's totally oblivious that her tirade is itself a perfect example of why we would not want to do that – in fact, just the opposite.

Although Vox does (or begins) a pretty good job of demolishing the legend of Jewish higher intelligence, I still regard it as an excellent illustration of the principle that intelligence does not equal wisdom, i.e. if they're so smart, how come they manage to turn initial friends into enemies so consistently?

Very fitting end to the interview. She doesn't understand her opponent's arguments, yet she's 100% certain they are not just wrong but evil. And she wants to destroy them, not through debate but through an SJW-style witch-hunt.

Vox Day: "..the myth of America as a proposition nation, and the myth of a melting pot, is absolutely false. America is now a multi-ethnic empire, which is headed for the fate of all multi-ethnic empires, and the only way that Western civilization is going to survive, is if it gives up the multiculturalism, globalism and anti-nationalism that has been dominant for the past … fifty, sixty years."

To have this published in a mainstream website is great! Well done Vox.

I imagine that at least a few of the non-alt right readers of Heatstreet will read it and nod along and think "this guy is right". If that is the case (and I very much hope so), then all these debates have fullfilled their purpose.

Louise Mensch: "There’s been a melting pot literally forever, and indeed your country is named after a bloody Spaniard, so what’s your problem?"

Also, Ricky Vaughn made the point on Twitter a few days ago: remember Piss Christ? Larry Flynt? When Jews were attacking traditional Christian morality, it was all good, edgy, subversive free speech. Now that the tables are turned, they're the establishment, and people are ridiculing them with Jew-caricature memes, it's "hate".

You said to Cathy that if she were an American, of course she’s as American as you are, and as American as I hope to become next year, is she … Do you regard the Jewish people as somehow not white? I am married to a Jew-

The most relevant issue here is that, whatever their physical phenotype, Jewish people tend to cultivate a strong ethnic identity that is distinct from the average white American. I don't think the Alt Right would notice so much if there wasn't an observable correlation between people who identify as Jewish and engage in rhetoric that seems to undermine American culture and western civilization.

@53 The English have a term that applies to South Eastern Europeans jointly (Spaniards, Portuguese, and Italinas) and is rude. No wonder she can't tell an Italian from a Spaniard, she grew up using one Word to Rule Them All... hail Brittania and all that rot.

Craig Craig CraigPeople can be anti-Semites and defend Ann Coulter. Nor is Ann required by any morality besides the morality of a slave (I'd best do this lest I get a beating) to repudiate or denounce anyoneAdultery is a sin.Fornication is a sinLending money at interest is a sin.Betraying and undermining a people who opened their country to you is a sin.Anti-Semitism is not a sin.

ray wrote:It says Israel under Christ will be quite pleasant indeed, and not only for Jews. However, if Irving Kristol and Jerry Pournelle say different, who needs Scripture?Well, since the nation of Israel (not the tribes of Israel) intentionally and explicitly exclude anyone who lives under the Messiahship of Jesus, Israel (the State, not the tribes) has no part in that prophecy.

I think there's value in Vox presenting as much as he can of his case (as he is doing), and doing it both reasonably and calmly. There isn't any other way I can think of to reach third parties who may be on the fence about the Alt-Right and don't know enough to get their info directly from source.

Meanwhile Louise has inadvertently presented a fair bit of testimony to the complete incoherence of her own position and nicely demonstrated the truth of Vox's thesis about the bi-factional ruling party by showing more solidarity with SJW ideologies and methods than with someone who is (hypothetically at least) on the same side.

I'm disappointed at all the crosstalk though. Whenever something looked like it was getting interesting, it seems the transcriber was unable to make it out, or the point got dropped. That makes these things less effective than they might otherwise be.

"Everything is diluted. That’s the whole point I don’t get about the alt-right. Apart from outliers like me – and I am an outlier – but apart from outliers like me, almost everybody’s ancestry is mixed race, don’t you guys get that?"

I don't think that is true. I actually would argue the opposite. That in the last 50,000 years homo sapiens have spread over the planet and they have started to evolve in different races. Most Africans, Europeans and East Asian are not mixed race and are not diluted.

Everything is diluted. That’s the whole point I don’t get about the alt-right. Apart from outliers like me – and I am an outlier – but apart from outliers like me, almost everybody’s ancestry is mixed race, don’t you guys get that?

'Guys for the most part there's no such thing as 100% CLEAN drinking water, why are you so worked up about some lead 'contamination'? Sounds pretty racist to me!'

This argument is absurd. And I reject weird neo-nazi bullshit anyway, which manifestly most of the alt-right isn't. On the flipside, no, she's not 'pure'. She's throwing out arbitrary cutoff points - pick another cutoff and she's yet another mutt herself. Funny how she won't embrace that.

These exchanges are a perfect reminder why arguing with women is a complete waste of a man's time.

As a boy, I remember reading, but not understanding, the following quote:

"A man is always at a disadvantage when arguing with a woman. Because only he, has to make sense."

Now, as a man with years of experience dealing with women, I can appreciate just how much wisdom is packed into that single sentence.

For the truth is, men and women are looking for different things when they argue...

A man* generally considers himself to be the winner of an argument, when he has best managed to illustrate the truth.

A woman, generally considers herself to be the winner of an argument, when she has best managed to make another or others feel the same as she does.

In fact, nothing seems sillier to a woman than the "male codes" of Honesty, Integrity and Honour, when in conflict or debate. To women these are nothing more than "school yard rules" which have no place in her world. The truth matters not a bit to her.

Or more accurately, "Truth" as men know it, does not exist in the same way for women. For it is true that women are far more 'herd like' than men, and thus women find "truth" or right and wrong, through the consensus of the herd.

It is what the herd believes is correct, that women believe is "truth." This is why women are far more attuned to ever changing notions such as fashion. And why shortly after puberty girls tend to the group mentality. And is also why social proofing (approval of the herd) plays such a pivotal part in determining which men they find sexually desirable.

For unlike men, who simply "know" what they find sexy in a mate, women find men sexy because of other women's sexual preferences. This is why newly married men often report an unexpected increase in other women's sexual interest in them. You see, women are groupies by nature. Hell, leave a group of women together for a length of time and even their menstrual cycles synchronise!

And so, when women argue, they are not trying to find the objective truth but rather are after manipulating the other or others into feeling unified with them towards their opinion. They are in fact, seeking a relative truth. Relative above all else, to the opinion of the herd.

If the herd believes 1+1=3, then it is correct - because the herd believes it is so. If tomorrow, the herd believes 1+1=1, then that will be correct - because the herd believes it is so.

It is men, who insist upon the objective truth - based on principle and universality - and continue to argue 1+1=2 no matter the consequences.

And this is why arguing with them is so fruitless for a man. Women are not after finding the correct answer so much as manipulating others into feeling they are right and their opponent is wrong. In other words, women argue by socially manipulating their opponent, using tools such as personal and social shaming, rather than seeking the actual, objective truth of the matter.

Right. When she said "...indeed your country is named after a bloody Spaniard...." I immediately thought, you really mean bloody dagos don't you Louise. So, technically she wasn't wrong about Amerigo's heritage, as he was a dago. They're all the same anyway, right?

"If men are always more or less deceived on the subject of women, it is because that they forget that they and women do not speak altogether the same language, and that words have not the same weight or the same meaning for them, especially in questions of feeling."

"Whether from shyness or precaution or artifice, a woman never speaks out her whole thought, and moreover what she herself knows of it is but a part of what it really is. Complete frankness seems to be impossible to her, and complete self-knowledge seems to be forbidden her. If she is a sphinx to us, it is because she is a riddle of doubtful meaning even to herself. She has no need of perfidy, for she is mystery itself."

"A woman is something fugitive, irrational, indeterminable, illogical, and contradictory. A great deal of forbearance ought to be shown her, and a good deal of prudence exercised with regard to her, for she may bring about innumerable evils with or without knowing it, capable of all kinds of devotion, and of all kinds of treason, she is at once the delight and the terror of men." - Henri Amiel 1868

As well as degrading the effectiveness of "racist" and "sexist" accusations, Vaughn's style of poasting also serves the purpose of polarizing tribes and provoking retribution in the form of leftists tweeting kill whitey all day. There is nothing better for group cohesion than seeing what your tribal enemies have planned once you're a minority. He attacks and causes them to stupidly overreach by threatening our survival. I don't think the left understands what a huge own goal "white privilege" is. I had no idea these people existed and was basically unconcerned about the browning of America until I saw their hateful rhetoric.

"Holy fucking shit, has anyone else read this? It was supposed to be a debate about "antisemitism" or "antisemitism on the alt-right" and it quickly turned into "Is Vox Day an antisemite"This is why you don't debate these people, even the "good ones." This is why OOSHTBHFAMLook at this ugly cunt's face - don't you just want to punch it? Fucking hatefuck her skull? Death to this traitorous bitch."Yeah , /pol/ showin' the love for Lulu.

That was pretty much unreadable, but I've decided to continue following these conversations. Seeing Mensch grow more frenetic with each session, I am buying popcorn in the expectation that her head will soon explode.

She thinks the guys from Chiapas or Guatemala are going to care about the holocaust? Guatemalans have been under European rule for five hundred years and some of them don't even speak Spanish. How in the hell does she plan on making them care about the holocaust?

Watching her give her analysis of Gamergate is itself incredible to me, and it really comes across as her trying to define what is and is not acceptable to GG people themselves. It's especially odd since if GG has one journalist hero, it's Milo, who (despite being a jew himself by birth, I believe?) has attitudes diametrically opposed to her own regarding the anti-semitism bit.

She reminds me of people who, early into GG, were clearly trying to make it into an alternate kind of SJW movement. Very much 'Guys guys they're calling us sexism, let's all boost feminism and show them we're totally not! We love social justice issues!!!' shit, which uh, didn't go over well.

I can't speak for conditions in Europe, but in the U.S. Jews have never been safer, more comfortable or more accepted. There are alway exceptions, like a few alt right thugs that play little games on the Twitter, but they are irrelevant. Still, there are good reasons to point out the Jew haters. Moral lessons are valuable.

I love where she said the word "Zionism" was anti-Semitic.Never mind that Herzl said it.As for the term "Negroe" which she also does not like, would she be more comfy with say: Nubian, Cushite, Ubangi or Zulu?It's really confusing to deal with the confused sometimes.

" Still, there are good reasons to point out the Jew haters. Moral lessons are valuable."It's too bad a lot of Yahooties and the pet cucks are far more morally bankrupt than the ones they point and shriek at.

Not only is VD right about anti-semitism, he's historically and biblically right.

In the story of Passover and the deliverance of the Jews from the Egyptians, the threat that faced the Jews was not only the whole whipping and slavery and being forced to build the pyramids thing that you see in the movies. It was also the threat of assimilation.

Many Jews prospered in Egypt as second-class citizens, as they are wont to do. They intermarried; losing their daughters to Egyptians of a higher class as marrying up as well as marrying Egyptian women and thus giving over the raising of their children to someone who might not follow their husband's ways.

@50. tz:"How many Ashkenazi would ever behave as Englishmen? Or Asians?"

Milton Friedman was a very decent sort. Even though they dwindle and assimilate (except in parts of NYC, where they multiply like Orthodox rabbits), I will white knight for many of them. Some of their best were the very best of us.

The jewish supremacy part of her essay was fun too. Jews (really, ashkenazi, hi grandma!) are smart, so we should invite them in to rule over us.

I have an employee like this, a Millennial, who views everything in black and white terms: *either* blacks have the same intellectual abilities as whites *or* we have to murder them all. Coupled with her last few remarks, I think she's a divorce, a bump of coke and a night with an alpha NatSoc away from going full Ben Garrison-style Zyklon Louise.

Vox has said before that we'll be shocked how fast things turn, once they do. I'm not smart enough to be sure of that, but, given the all-or-nothing mindset the (((education system))) has put in place, once people start realizing they've been gas-lighted for four generations... I could see it getting very ugly.

It ticks me off that an empathic, average IQ moron like me understood immediately what Vox was doing; yet most of the commenters here do not.

As Snidely Whiplash said in the first thread...

Ten years ago the debate was "Is Pat Buchannann an anti-Semite for putting America ahead of Israel." Same thing 2 years ago for that matter.

Today the debate is "Does anyone who will matter in 10 years even care about anti-Semitism anymore."

THAT'S the point of this.

Jews are rightfully going to be relegated as minor players on the world stage. Most importantly, they should embrace that and make Aliyah to either Israel or Birobizhan and concentrate on making themselves a landed civilised nation enforcing their own version of eucivic and eugenic "hajnal-line".

The rest of us Goyim? We have our own problems (the Tribe didn't help) but act now to secure those two lands for yourselves and be humble, shirt-sleeves rolled up and work hard and you all should be able to make a paradise of both Israel and Birobizhan. Those are your territories, utilize them well and be good neighbors.

VFM #6306 wrote:My favorite part is when she talks and talks and talks then says, "Let me talk."

Yes, these "interview" segments leave me shaking my head and thinking, "Wow, this bitch is a yuuuuuuge f&%#ing cunt!" and with every segment she only keeps proving it over and over. She literally has zero empathy for anyone outside her own adopted tribe, and she has problems with *other* people's tribalism?

Ms Louise wossname needed to be told that much of the left has learned to fear attacking the alt-right, or people like Coulter, conservatives who fight back. They are now falling back on using Useful Idiots such as Cathy Young (sp?).

If Ms Louise doesn't want to see the alt right firing at other anti-SJWs she needs to convince them not to attack the alt-right fighters using the tactics and language of the SJWs. It is certainly demoralizing to watch people who ought to be allies used as SJW proxies.

I realize at this time it's damnably hard to separate the sheep from the goats. But since that's almost entirely due to the forces of political correctness, and the cultural Marxists, it behoove us all to put our big girl panties on, swallow our distaste, and cry truce until such time as those forces are destroyed.

If Mr. Vox Day expressed as much to Ms Wossname, my apologies. I cannot bear to read any more of her drivel.

Mensch's 'Someone sent me mean tweets, that means the entire group is bad' is a page right out of the anti-GG handbook. So seeing Mensch on the one hand saying 'We support GG, GG is great, journalists lied about and smeared GG', but then saying 'I called Ann Coulter an anti-semite and anonymous people on the internet sent me MEAN TWEETS, that means both Ann Coulter and the Alt Right are evil monsters who need to be destroyed', is surreal.

Louise Mensch: You said to Cathy that if she were an American, of course she’s as American as you are, and as American as I hope to become next year, is she … Do you regard the Jewish people as somehow not white? I am married to a Jew-That Russian yenta is not American as I am, And if I have my way Lulu won't be her sorry ass here next year, lest she swings from a Lamp post then. If you are married to a jew, hie your yappin' happy ass to Israel ,and do it quickly.Fuck that triflin' harlot. No you are not white, you eskimo bitch.

May I present 70 names for the SJW list https://vultureofcritique.wordpress.com/2016/05/23/google-microsoft-yahoo-and-other-top-tech-giants-have-all-publicly-embraced-the-un-and-its-agenda-for-humanity-many-of-the-more-than-70-speakers-also-said-it-was-past-time-to-censor-the-internet/#more-12115

Well Mosby, she is not American, never will be; at best a paper-citizen, but with no american culture.

I Think that you should focus on maintaining and strengthing (need spellcheck u_u) what you do control. See, Mensch coming along and living her life in a non-american way but never expanding her life-style damages American Culture less than an American that rejects his/her own culture! An American that does that screws things for at least a generation, but most likely for several generations, Without saying it is a perfect weapon to "show" how stupid American culture. If she fails to even have any of the American values, the damage can still be mitigated.

Even the hispanics that take over a whole city can still be reverted through economics and socio-political "warfare". Don't worry about her claims of nationality, she is who she is by now, nothing can change that. Focus on the possible movements on the board not how the pieces look like.

I'm willing to bet one of John Wick's gold doubloons that Friedman did more to advance the cause of freedom than you or your 10,000 closest relatives, give or take an order of magnitude.

I even admire that as he learned, won a Nobel prize, and aged, he became even more libertarian. "...when at the Treasury he helped design the income tax withholding system because his job was to design tax policy to finance the war effort. There was no ideological pattern other than the standard fare for economists, to look for an efficient way to attain the objective given to him by others."During the years 1946–47 this changed."

Regardless of whether MPAI or not, I think I get Vox's presumed purpose here; I still disagree with it. My opinion is irrelevant to whether he debates Louise or not - his bog, his life, his opinion. Obviously, to anyone who's taken the red pill his occasional assertions (when allowed to get a word in edgewise) appear moderate in the extreme. Fine, most people can't handle having an entirely different worldview thrust upon them all at once, particularly those living in the NY Jewish bubble. And it also takes people differing amounts of time to accept just how mis-educated they've been and how pozzed the world is.

However,even if one considers Louise is Vox's friend, he appears to go far beyond the bounds of courtesy in allowing her to totally dominate the conversation, dismiss any disagreement with a leftist trope, and emote extremely poor rhetoric in an increasingly hysterical manner. To me (and from other comments in the other thread, it would seem to others as well), Louise abuses Vox's courtesy and places him in the position of a mendicant.

Perhaps some of her listeners can be reached in this manner; from personal experience I doubt so. Either way, I have neither the patience nor the courtesy (nor even any more leftists I recognize as "friends" and grant such courtesy to) to have such a "conversation." I'll stick to mocking the cucks at Breitbart - they, at least, recognize something in Trump and don't automatically dismiss American nationalism as inherently evil. I used to get "racist" and "anti-Semite" thrown at me immediately; now when I raise DNA and inbred cultural differences, that doesn't generally happen anymore. Either they're ignoring it (certainly possible), or perhaps beginning to consider perhaps I have a point. That may well be what Vox is hoping for in his exchanges with Louise. They're still extremely difficult to read and I cannot imagine what sort of common ground one could have with her.

My bad, my iPhone does not help in going to youtube, just scroll down a little and check that YT link, the video will start in the middle, but if you rewind the tape (oldschool u_u) you can see how the DePaul thing went down with some awesome vantage point.

David Power wrote:These exchanges are a perfect reminder why arguing with women is a complete waste of a man's time.

As a boy, I remember reading, but not understanding, the following quote:

"A man is always at a disadvantage when arguing with a woman. Because only he, has to make sense."

Now, as a man with years of experience dealing with women, I can appreciate just how much wisdom is packed into that single sentence.

For the truth is, men and women are looking for different things when they argue...

A man* generally considers himself to be the winner of an argument, when he has best managed to illustrate the truth.

A woman, generally considers herself to be the winner of an argument, when she has best managed to make another or others feel the same as she does.

Men and women have been honed by natural selection to be perfectly aimed at each other's weaknesses. It is actually easy to win an argument with a woman, as long as you're willing to meet nonsense with nonsense (such as responding to "Smash the Patriarchy!" with "Noodle the Unicorns!") and also don't care that she will hate you forever. I discovered this when I was a devoutly Christian young man who honestly believed in 1. Truth, 2. soulmates and 3. abstinence before marriage.

In this part II Louise seems to be going for the GOTCHYA! Right in the first part; she fails to do one, and when she shifts gear to DNA, well, Vox assumed control of the debate. From then on it sounded like I was reading the blog.

To me Louise is debating Vox and Vox knows that.Because She just seems... Angry at Vox Day. Some of you people were angrier at her though XD.

I can't speak for conditions in Europe, but in the U.S. Jews have never been safer, more comfortable or more accepted.

And you shouldn't be speaking for the conditions here in the US either, as if you know what you're talking about; precisely the conditions you describe are precisely the conditions which do not bode well for us. You must also believe that it is no longer important to remember the past, let alone understand it. Ask yourself at what cost has the Jew achieved these conditions that you pithily describe.

I recently read about a town in a Southern state of Germany where, in the late 1820s, the local rabbi made Tishah B'Av a festive occasion and exhorted his congregation to demonstrate by means of their festivities their "repudiation of the out of date yearning for [Israel], and to give proof of their patriotic attachment to the Fatherland . . . from which they hope to attain full civic freedom and equality."

"Jerusalem," the rabbi declared, "is here and [Israel] is now situated on German soil."

It was in that very state that Jews gathered together to decide how much of Sabbath observance and other "burdens" they might offer as concessions to embrace the new age, not too unlike what you just described ("safer, more comfortable, more accepted" as if those are good things).

If you read history, you will understand that the average Jew in Germany from the 1820s to the end of the 19th century expressed the exact same sentiment that you just did in your flippantly obtuse comment, while in no other German state did Jew hatred flourish more than in the one I just described in that little town Southern Germany.

I have said this before, and since at least one person always seems to rear their foolish head with the same old tired and specious arguments about how the Jew has never had it better, the regulars here (and our gracious host) will forgive my redundance:

"Enmity and oppression will continue, not because we are too Jewish and too committed to Judaism, but because we meet our Jewish obligations deficiently, indifferently, and frivolously." [Rabbi S.R. Hirsch, 1860] European Jewish history has confirmed this truth, and it will be confirmed again, at least one more time here in the US, where approximately 6 million Jews currently reside. Mark my words.

(This is also one of the reasons why I consider Vox a friend of the Jews, as he has been beating a similar drum for some time now.)

According to our Sages, the Jew is required to live in accordance with the Torah in whatever conditions society may present and must be prepared to serve G-d under adverse conditions. Rabbi Hirsch, of blessed memory, also argued that Jews "should submerge themselves in the totality of the state's membership and as such require no special representation," and often advised Jewish communities against provocative conduct and the flaunting of their rights ... he was concerned that excessive rejoicing might cause ill will among the non-Jewish population.

Look around, Starck, we're way beyond the 'excessive rejoicing' and the'flaunting' that R' Hirsch warned about. I believe that it is naive attitudes like yours that will precipitate, and is even now precipitating, the return of the ancient hatred and animosity of the nations. Why do you hate Jews so much?

I truly tremble at what is in store for the Jews here in the US. Mostly especially since it seems we have learned absolutely nothing from 20th century European history. The best we have is "Never again!" ... which is simply code for "Never return!" to the G-d we have offended and continue to offend.

But not to worry, there lies in store for us a sudden awakening from the dangerous illusions which your thoughtless comments have only served to reinforce. "G-d will not forsake His people, and will not abandon His inheritance." (cf. Psalm 94)

Louise Mensch: "Ann Coulter though, is being defended by a bunch of anti-Semites who as their weapon use anti-Semitism. In order to try and prove she’s not anti-Semitic, that’s not very helpful, is it?"

The alt-right does not have to play ideological purity games with those who may be anti-semitic (assuming that's been proven in the first place). Guilt-by-association is exclusively a game for the vicious left, and additionally always ends with purges of the more permanent variety.

G-d forbid Americans support a besieged nation. AIPAC does work huge numbers of non-jews support. As for ADL, it will be the organization that successfully rallies support for the Jews if true anti-semitism ever returns to America.

Now Rabbi, show me the evidence there is a reckoning coming for the Jews.

I like Craig, but sometimes he seems.... a bit simple. He's realized he was being a dick and didn't want to be a dick anymore. Fine, I wholeheartedly agree. Doesn't mean you have to look at everything from the perspective of "What's the least not-nice point of view." Like the instance above. Yes, many alt-right trolls are actually not anti-Semitic at all. But many are anti-Semitic, and that's okay too.

Starck wrote:There's no flaunting going on and you can't point to any.If I can go to jail in any Western European country for criticizing Jews, but you can't go to jail for criticizing Christians, that's flaunting your power and position.

"If I can go to jail in any Western European country for criticizing Jews, but you can't go to jail for criticizing Christians, that's flaunting your power and position."

We were talking about America. You can criticize Jews all you want in the U.S. I wonder if the Rabbi knew that when he suggested that he opposes laws in the U.S. that criminalize denying the holocaust? Laws that don't exist. I suspect he realized he's on pretty think ground with his talk of some sort of reckoning coming for Jews in the U.S. then retreating.

Starck wrote:We were talking about America. You can criticize Jews all you want in the U.S.Provided you do it under a pseudonym. Otherwise you will be hounded and destroyed.You may think that's fine, but it's still flaunting.If you're a Jew, on the other hand, you can produce "Piss Christ" or other anti-Christian abomination and be lauded, feted, and protected by the government and society. Anyone who dares speak out against you will be attacked, and if possible ruined.

Look at the debate Vox had with Mrs Mensch. Granted she's only a Jewish proxy, but still, the entitlement, victimology, and general claim of social and intellectual superiority, and virtue is all out of proportion to any basis in fact. Imagine Voix had said that the alt-Right will "hunt down every Jew". Would you accept that?

Hell, look at your own statements honestly. You're flaunting your status every bit as much as Mensch.

I doubt he ever noticed me (everyone was tall to him, who was Gringotts small). He loved my wife, though. Rand was an Objectivist, not a libertarian, and I've never been a particular fan. I'm assuming you're projecting; I don't live in a world with minders.

"Friedman and Rosenbaum, like you, chose stark individualism over blood and soil nationalism." As opposed to collectivism? Yes. And no, I've never identified as a 'Blut und Boden' ruggedly tough peasant, Nazi or otherwise. I'm also doubting that you know anything about any of these terms.

"It hasn't worked out very well or we wouldn't be arguing the merits of Libertarianism and Free-Markets still."

This is an argument? OK, I'll just assume you're drunk. An otter somewhere says, "Good day."

@38It is counterproductive to attribute hidden psychological motives to someone, like Sarah Hoyt, whose argument is more convincing than yours. In effect, you are arguing that e pluribus unam is not the motto of the republic and never has been, and that the pledge should say 'liberty and justice for some of us.'

Once you invite speculation about hidden motives into an argument, you yourself are fair game, and rational argument ceases.You just hear endlessly mutual accusations instead.

Could not she, withno less honesty than yours, claim that an American is embarrassed that a non native understands the spirit of America better than he, and so he lashes out to protect his bruised ego?

The pharisee is dismayed because the samaritan is more righteous than he!

I don't have to, Aylisa Rosenbaum is a Founding Mother of the Libertarian movement just as much as Milton Friedman is a Founding Father.

The Chicago Boys left a trail of destruction across the globe most famously enshrined in Chile. Here, after Allende was assasinated, Pinochet ended up kicking out both the Chicago boys and foreign "investors" because they were sucking the country dry. Pinochet installed Nationalist reforms far in excess of anything Allende did. Helicoptered both Leftists and Libertarians by the thousands and managed to get his country's economy out of the toilet.

Fellows like you who sneer at blood and soil; dismissing it as puerile collectivism have a rude awakening coming. How much did you donate to Rand's Detroit enterprise btw; or was that too collectivist and Non-Objectionist for you without share-holder stakes?

Almost half the supreme court, counting the wise latina converso (exactly half if bammers gets his appointment). Fed chairmanship for the last 30 years. Complete dominance in Hollywood. Complete dominance in the financial sector. Complete dominance in the press. Piss Christ art. Making up the melting pot and then rewriting american history, as taught to our own children. Franz Boas, Sigmund Freud, Theodor Adorno. The Hart-Celler Act.

Lose your job and get written out of the history books if you say anything about any of it.

If this isn't jewish flaunting, I don't want to see what jewish flaunting looks like.

Once you invite speculation about hidden motives into an argument, you yourself are fair game, and rational argument ceases.You just hear endlessly mutual accusations instead.

With respect - while endless mutual accusations are terrible, endless wheel-spinning arguments aren't much better. And sometimes there are hidden motives which make conversation impossible or pointless. I'm pretty sure 'Arguing forever with someone who insists they're arguing in good faith but they're really just blowing smoke and bullshitting' is one of the circles in the Inferno. At least once endlessly mutual accusations pop up we know the intellectual part is over and we can go do better things.

The pharisee is dismayed because the samaritan is more righteous than he!

Sometimes samaritans really are cocksuckers. Pharisees too, granted.

Besides, it's not righteousness which is the issue, but citizenship. No one cares if a non-native 'understands the spirit of America better than he' because getting an A+ in Spirit of American Studies 101 doesn't mean shit in and of itself. And anyone who thinks it not only is important, but it's essentially a pass which means 'You're a citizen now, even if you don't have the paperwork or any legal right to be so' should fail that course anyway.

My guess is 'The conviction that burns in my breast - nay, my very soul - which yearns for the freedom the Creator has granted all men and women throughout the world.' or some other bit of poetic theatrics which coincidentally has nothing to do with being, you know, an actual citizen of America. Yet which is supposed to be even better than being born legally in the country to actual citizens.

All I know is that the American Spirit seems to be able to spring up in the soul of anyone on earth, but American itself is tightly restricted by borders. No one ever suddenly discovers that some small patch of land in Bangladesh is American soil - Spirit doesn't work that way.

Also, while having the true American Spirit is a guarantee of the right of citizenship, completely lacking it does not mean your ass should be thrown out of the country. That's when we revert to the whole 'legal citizen' thing as primary.

I read it, then came back to it with fresh eyes and read it again. I noticed that Vox completely dodged the questions "What’s that got to do with African Americans getting hung?", then diverted the conversation so that he could get a massive amount of red-pill knowledge out there. It wasn't until the end when she came back with "it’s straight up anti-Semitism that the alt-right has failed itself completely as a force by dragging out these kinds of cartoons".

It seems that she's incapable of connecting the dots, all she sees is:1. Post racist memes2. ???3. Get relegated to the dustbin of history

She doesn't get it at all. We're not defending Ann, because she doesn't need defense. These people have marked themselves as enemies, and we're going on the offense; fighting alongside Ann, because she does need and deserve allies. The more offensive the memes, the more it proves they no longer control the narrative. The long-term objective is to preserve Western Civilization. The short-term objective is to clear away the ones holding us back, and dank memes blessed by kek are our trusty sidearm.

Nice point.Guess you can't really be born American in Portugal after all. tee-heeStill here I ws thinking... A lot of people here defend that certain people despite being born in the US of A are not American!

So I was wondering just what makes one an American exactly... Maybe I should wait for the others to reply see what is in store.

148. Eduardo May 30, 2016 2:01 AMSo I was wondering just what makes one an American exactly.

i dunno. what you mean by "American", exactly?

i would agree that there is no religious test. however, there is certainly a difference between residence, legal citizenship ( no one would deny that Sarah Hoyt qualifies as an American here, although "more American" is clearly stupid as i can be President while she cannot ) and adherence to the Rights and Principles of the founding Revolutionaries.

given how corrupt we have permitted our educational system to become, most natural born Americans are now inculcated with overtly Marxist values ( like universal suffrage ) which would never have been approved of by the Founders.

however, Sarah's "more American" claim is stupid even on this basis. she claims that Heinlein was an exemplar of "Americanism".

well, good ol Bob was an atheist, Socialist, polyamorist who advocated seizing children from their parents so that the State could raise them in a non-religious environment.

hell, you may as well say that your appreciation of British Socialist George Orwell makes you "American".

the more Hoyt runs her mouth the more obvious it is that she's completely incompetent.

It is counterproductive to attribute hidden psychological motives to someone, like Sarah Hoyt, whose argument is more convincing than yours.

Agreed, except Sarah's argument isn't even remotely convincing. It's ahistorical, self-serving, and flat-out wrong. The reason so many people have laughed at her "born more American than Americans in Portugal" claim is because it is so obviously and abjectly stupid.

Her argument is nothing more than a writer getting carried away with her own rhetoric.

In effect, you are arguing that e pluribus unam is not the motto of the republic and never has been, and that the pledge should say 'liberty and justice for some of us.'

Any time you use words such as "in effect", you are on dialectically dangerous ground. The motto is irrelevant; the naturalization law clearly stated that only white people could become Americans. This is not up for debate. The "proposition nation" argument has been conclusively proven wrong.

If Mensch's goal is to fight anti-semitism she is acting counterproductively. As she is over using the term to make it lose all meaning. Furthermore by marrying a Jew without conversion she is assuring his Jewish line will die with him.

Lastly her contention that Jews are as European as the Brits, French etc. is preposterous. We are a unique nation with a particular land. Any other place we happen to be is a temporary resting place until we can return to our homeland. Yes America is comfortable for the Jews, but so was Spain.

Good morning. No, it's lack of sleep due to colicky rugrats. (Thankfully, they've settled down and the bald patches should grow back in a few months)

As for Libertarianism, it requires a high-trust society to function without external pressures of predatory clannish people. We had a form of libertarian economics in the early 13 colonies thanks to our hajnali predecessors and their small-scale, agrarian-based market. But that was protected on its western flank by frontiermen who kept the Red man at bay. It soon dissolved anyways thanks to industrialization, immigration and subsequent increase in population and decrease in self-sufficiency via family farm, business, etc. in exchange for employment.

Modern-day libertarianism simply will not work at any feasible scale unless the population is homogenous, white high-trust hajnali, well protected from, again, predatory and clannish peoples.

Most people it has been demonstrated time and time again, are tribal,brutes,clannish,statists. Whether by Big Man polity directly seizing your assets or via paycheck stub, doesn't matter, they will vote with slips or machetes to take from you.

Another thing about Libertarianism is just how morally insane it is. It believes the most basic social unit is the individual and his money. That's essentially what the philosophy is summed up to. JFC, the marxism/communists are nuts, but at the tribal level it can work, Libertarian thought and philosphy as practice in modern times is quite simply, crazy.

Now, if Libertarians had their own Israel or Redoubt to go to and practice their philosphy in full; I would have no problems popping corn and slurping root beer watching the fun unfold as they got ass-raped.

The problem is, no, they, like the Progs, want to flood white nations full of turd world trash. Unlike the progs rubbing their genitals, dreaming of xir future commissar position; Libertarians actually are mid-wit idiots who by and large swallow the magic-dirt theory and race-creationism kool-aid. Which....well I'm sorry, but I'm utterly in Vox and John Red Eagle's camp here in regarding that as pure, fucking, insanity. I looked into Gary Johnson and he makes a few noises about "checking immigration" and read enough to see he is full of it and will rubber stamp visas with the same speed Bernanke fired up the presses in the QEs. No thanks.

Nationalist libertarianism, reined in by Christianity, utilized by homogenous hajnalis, wise as a serpent to the World, -can- flourish someday...perhaps in an isolated Dyson sphere deep in a nebula far from any shipping lanes.

Tl;dr Libertarianism is for wolverines, Marxism for mole-rats. Neither works in complex societies.

Well Farr, your definition is obviously era dependent, because if I were to use it as a general definition, there would be no first americans and definately no americans today!!!

Mando, Americans have a very peculiar culture. Everywhere you look, nations have a very a clear national identification traits, it is funny because certain people, especially on the Left, always say it like the USA national identification can be changed at will while other countries don't. Similar thing here in Brazil, but you can actually make an argument that Brazilians have almost no national identification at all, especially when you look the history of Brazil.

Still Americans must have a particular culture. The thing is, is it all a matter of DNA? Is it simply White and Christian? Is it just being a descendant of the people the people that lived during the Indenpendence? Which the Couto family, my family, had people in Pennsylvania (is this correct?)

So anyways, just wanted to hear how one defines an American.

About Hoyt... I just wanted to poke fun at her XD! I mean, here I am, I like the USA, I know a lot about American culture yet I have never wanted to be American, the Star and Stripes is just not my symbol, the American National Anthem is not my anthem, despite being a beautiful anthem that gets me pumped and all. I mean some values you people have, I have them as well, but even if I had all the values, I don't get it... Is being Portuguese that shitty XD? Guess all the jokes we Brazilians make about them are correct in the end of the day.

In effect, you are arguing that e pluribus unam is not the motto of the republic and never has been

The "understood meaning" of the motto has changed. Per wiki,

"The traditionally understood meaning of the phrase was that out of many states (or colonies) emerges a single nation. However, in recent years its meaning has come to suggest that out of many peoples, races, religions, languages, and ancestries has emerged a single people and nation—illustrating the concept of the melting pot."

"Many states - full of white Englishmen - into one nation" is just a leeeetle different than "many peoples, races, religions, languages, and ancestries into one nation".

Another way to say it is that the SJW "melting pot" interpretation of e pluribus unum was not the motto of the republic in 1782 and should not be now.

i wouldn't even consider your ignorance on this inexcusable ... except that this has been covered before on the blog.

139. John Wright May 30, 2016 1:08 AMwhose argument is more convincing than yours.

i notice that you make a bald assertion, but do not actually provide any example in which she has bested me.

139. John Wright May 30, 2016 1:08 AMIn effect, you are arguing that e pluribus unam is not the motto of the republic and never has been, and that the pledge should say 'liberty and justice for some of us.'

*facedesk*

oh, come ON, John.

e pluribus unum refers to the creation of one Federal government out of the 13 states.

the more recent appropriation of "all peoples, races, RELIGIONS and sexual orientations" into the Unum is a Marxist perversion of the phrase elevating the international Proletariat above the citizens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_pluribus_unum#Meaning

139. John Wright May 30, 2016 1:08 AMOnce you invite speculation about hidden motives into an argument, you yourself are fair game,

indeed, i encourage you to hold me to the standards to which i hold others.

however, Hoyt has lied, and flagrantly.

as i pointed out to Eduardo, what do you mean by American?

legally, Hoyt is NOT, and can NEVER BE considered Natural Born. therefore, legally, Hoyt is LESS of an American citizen than i ( and 300 million or so others ) can be because *i* have Privileges which are *Constitutionally prohibited* to her.

hell even June Oswald, daughter of a presidential assassin, can legally run for the office. yes, you read that right. Sarah Hoyt is *less American* ( legally, *Constitutionally* ) than the Natural Born Soviet citizen daughter of a presidential assassin.

as to June's acculturation or historical understanding of American principles relative to Hoyt's, i can make no comment. as, obviously, i have no idea what June Oswald thinks about any subject, having never read anything by her.

139. John Wright May 30, 2016 1:08 AMHow would such an accusation differ from what you level against her?

because practically every citation of "knowledge of Americana" which she makes demonstrates only that she cannot differentiate between American principles and Socialist ones which have encroached into our educational systems internationally.

consider Molyneux's interview with a Swedish woman, notice that their educational systems have likewise been perverted with White Guilt anti-national teachings.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25VVmCviVao

150. Bobby Farr May 30, 2016 3:31 AMAmerican=someone who entered the world via an American woman's vagina.

that's the Feminist subset of Marxian perversions of American principles.

the 1790 Naturalization Act doesn't give a damn about the nationality of the mother, either parent could be an American citizen to confer Jus Sanguinis.

the critical requirement was previous US *residency* ( not citizenship ) BY THE FATHER.

applied, this means that a Natural Born Citizen US mother could emigrate to Iran and marry a mullah who had never been to America and her child would STILL not have been an American citizen.

whereas, a male US diplomat under this law could father children overseas to foreign national mothers and they would be eligible to run for the presidency.

i don't know this for a fact, but my working assumption is that it was either Jefferson or that horndog Franklin who were responsible for this asinine redefinition of the legal term of art, "Natural Born Citizen". previously ( before the US existed ), it had meant a child receiving citizenship from Jus Sanguinis of BOTH parents + Jus Soli. anything less was considered a mere 'citizen' and certain Privileges of Natural Born citizenship quite often were withheld from them due to their assumed divided loyalties.

i suppose a desire to permit a child of Lafayette to ascend to the presidency could also have been a reason for this lax definition of NBC.

157. Eduardo May 30, 2016 7:51 AMStill Americans must have a particular culture.

we agree on this.

Marxists do not.

157. Eduardo May 30, 2016 7:51 AMIs it just being a descendant of the people the people that lived during the Indenpendence? Which the Couto family, my family, had people in Pennsylvania (is this correct?)

as with Vox has said about his children, they are growing up Italian. you grew up Brazilian.

i'm assuming your family hasn't maintained American citizenship. i know there are Amish communities down there in Brazil / Argentina.

These Couto's in the US are most likely 1000th degree cousins, judging by my grandlarents, the part of the family I descend from are 20th century immigrants of Spanish and Portuguese and probably either slave owners or poor portuguese people. As far as I know I have no American Relatives. So probably the Couto family just spread through The American Continent most likely. But it was interesting to know that there are multiple Couto's arriving in the US close to the Independence war, because they are Spanish/Portuguese.

Well about the American culture, Marxists believe in Tabula Rasa so it is no surprise really. And just like here in Brazil, the US was made of several cultures so the argument gets power, still there is no way to get confused between an American and a European.

It's like a duck trying to tell a fish about water. We're born in the water, we live here, we've breathed it in since day one.

A duck isn't born here, cannot understand the depths the same way and has experiences entirely outside the fish's experiences. Sure I'll share a pond with the duck but it can't tell me how to be a fish.

@165. bob k. mando:"grammar encompasses sentence composition, capitalization is a subset of orthography, numbnuts.""i wouldn't even consider your ignorance on this inexcusable ... except that this has been covered before on the blog."

You got it wrong then. Orthography is not a part of oral grammar, but is definitely part of grammar as a whole, and is essential when writing. We're all writing here. Numbnuts. Also, your first comma should have been a period or a semicolon.

"As for Libertarianism, it requires a high-trust society to function without external pressures of predatory clannish people. We had a form of libertarian economics in the early 13 colonies thanks to our hajnali predecessors and their small-scale, agrarian-based market."

I strongly disagree. Those characteristics simply can't be determinative. People within the Hajnal Line continuously organize themselves into kingdoms, empires, reichs and EUs. If anything, it makes them intelligent sheep, born and bred to be serfs. Even most of the colonies spent most their existence pre-Constitution as brutal dictatorships (cf. the Mathers in MA).

Rather, it is the Scotts-Irish, from outside the Hajnal Line, who rebel against the yoke and are ungovernable (witness the 1000-year libertarian Irish rule, which it took the English hundreds of years to subdue). They're strongly represented on this blog: you recognize the dumb hillbillies (hi, jOHN!).

I'm coming to the belief that it is the intelligence of the serfs combined with the unbowed bloody-mindedness of the hillbillies that gives America its unique quality, its exceptionalism. Sometimes you get both sides mixed in individuals and you end up with trees that go to sheep-pens like Stanford but always end up in start-ups.

"Modern-day libertarianism simply will not work at any feasible scale unless..."

There are a lot of knobs to twist in a society. Most of those are being reset right now by technology in a manner much more conducive to libertarianism, but almost everybody suffers from technology-blindness and this is already long.

"Another thing about Libertarianism is just how morally insane it is. It believes the most basic social unit is the individual and his money."

This is just wrong. Decisions are made by individuals, but they can take as input the interests of family, neighbors, country. etc. It's the same principle as Protestantism: You are responsible for your own soul. That doesn't make you selfish.

" watching the fun unfold as they got ass-raped."

Your porn is very different from mine.

"they, like the Progs, want to flood white nations full of turd world trash."

One magazine, Reason, was founded explicitly as an open borders libertarian rag. Whatever, the Overton Window is changing.

It is not her obligation to refrain from marrying him. It was his obligation to show obedience to the law of only marrying those within our faith. And given the general ignorance of why any of it is important to our kindred, the obligation to make that clear to him was on us.

Nor do I see any issue with the way she spoke. Although I am not one of the ilk, and cannot speak for them nor think it is my business to speak to them, I can speak to you. And I say she was willing to engage. That takes courage and decency. If she was over excited or otherwise, credit to her for being willing to speak her mind and listen in turn.

According to our Sages, the Jew is required to live in accordance with the Torah in whatever conditions society may present and must be prepared to serve G-d under adverse conditions.

Noble spoken. However, those same sages you are paraphrasing regarded Jesus as an apostate, at best you can say they rejected him as Messiah. Please consider the Disputation of Barcelona, a debate which concluded with the Spanish king awarding Rabbi Moses ben Nahman a prize, albeit stating he “never heard an unjust cause so nobly defended”.

Please explain how you can use them as an authority and still believe Jesus was the long awaited Messiah.

And if you are going to argue that Jesus was not directly referred to in the talmud and we have all been in error, then I would like to point out that it is highly unlikely that Rabbi S.R. Hirsch believed otherwise, yet you also cited him in the manner of an authority to be obeyed.

I apologize to any Christian if my words are offensive, at worst my words are written in ignorance, certainly not meant in disrespect.

Ron wrote:Nor do I see any issue with the way she spoke. Although I am not one of the ilk, and cannot speak for them nor think it is my business to speak to them, I can speak to you. And I say she was willing to engage. That takes courage and decency. If she was over excited or otherwise, credit to her for being willing to speak her mind and listen in turn.

and listen in turn.

Show some evidence of that. Anywhere in the quoted piece. I see none. She is no more willing to listen than Trigglypuff.

However, those same sages you are paraphrasing regarded Jesus as an apostate, at best you can say they rejected him as Messiah . . . Please explain how you can use them as an authority and still believe Jesus was the long awaited Messiah.

So what?

Regarding those who sat in Moses' seat, what did the Messiah Himself command?

Then Y'shua said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach."(cf. (Matthew 23)

Some may not have practiced what they preached and some of them may have even rejected Y'shua as the promised Messiah, but according to the Messiah Himself, these were not grounds for dismissing them as authorities to be respected and obeyed. Nor does it diminish the authority inherent in any truth that they have spoken. The same is no less true of the Sages to whom I refer from time to time. You imply there is a conflict. But there is none.

Their authority is not diminished any more than the authority of Caiaphas was diminished when G-dprophesied through him that it was imperative that one man die for the nation (cf. John 11), even though we know that Caiaphas himself illegitimately occupied a position that was sold to the highest bidder. Should we dismiss the prophecy out of hand simply because the one who prophesied may not have embraced Y'shua as the Messiah? Heck, there is even precedent for a dumb ass imparting His truths. That's certainly His prerogative. Perhaps there is hope for the rest of us yet.

The Scriptures also say that one of the key advantages of being a Jew was that we were entrusted with the very oracles of G-d. And this trust was was not based on any merits of our own, nor was it contingent upon our acceptance or rejection of the Messiah, but was simply based upon a choice that G-d, in His infinite wisdom, made, and according to the Scriptures, the gift and call of G-d is irrevocable.

To clarify then, your argument is that their statements are to be accepted in all things, except where Jesus and the New Testament are concerned. Is it only in this particular field where one can reject their authority to speak in the name of God, or is it reasonable for a man to reject other statements of theirs that seem incongruent or irrational?

To clarify then, your argument is that their statements are to be accepted in all things, except where Jesus and the New Testament are concerned.

The metric against which to measure the veracity and authority of their statements is the Torah. Everything is contained in the Torah and the Torah is therefore foundational for everything that follows (e.g. the Prophets and the Writings, etc.). This metric also applies to Y'shua the Messiah and the authors of the Greek writings (i.e. New Testament).

The Bereans were also considered more noble-minded because they searched the Scriptures (i.e. the Tanakh) in order to verify the things they were hearing in the synagogue during the Second Temple period. The Scriptures also tell us that Y'shua's disciples and others were teaching in the synagogues and demonstrating and proving from the Scriptures (i.e. the Tanakh) that Y'shua was the Messiah. G-d and His Word are the measure of all things.

@113 Dexter You don't have to "hate Jews" (i.e., be anti-Semitic) to wish American politicians would stop talking about them and stop talking about Israel. Why is this so hard for her to understand?---

You are trying to turn humans into god-like ahistorical A.I. based on hajnali backgrounds. You attempt to combine both non-hajnal whites and hajnal whites and run with it as a "Libertarian" North American emergence that can be applied Globally.

Not going to happen. The majority of Libertarians are white and voting for Trump or Sanders. The rest are a Seth Rogen Joke....Maaannnng.

@188. Takin' a Look:"Thanks for the reply, very interesting to see your strictly ahistorical and solipsistic perspective."

I'm starting to like you. Very few (two) withstand more than two Groot comments (Danby and bob k. mando). Nice. I love those guys. If only you could measure up. Here's crossing my fingers.

"You are trying to turn humans into god-like ahistorical A.I."

Ha! I can hardly wait. This is like a William Gibson novel. What fun!

"based on hajnali backgrounds. You attempt to combine both non-hajnal whites and hajnal whites and run with it as a 'Libertarian' North American emergence that can be applied Globally."

So when I refer to American exceptionalism, explicitly, I am claiming that this "can be applied Globally"? "My" logic is dizzying, indeed.

"Not going to happen. The majority of Libertarians are white and voting for Trump or Sanders. The rest are a Seth Rogen Joke....Maaannnng."

Gaah. Bad endings can so ruin a movie. Still, I extend hope that the sequels can allow a hero to rise... in the next movie. Plus, the colic. You have my sympathies. Kids are really why we live. Except a couple of years there when they're teens, and they then they can be so sassy. Still, though.

If the topic was Turkey, Coulter might have said, "How many freaking Turks are there in the US anyway?" Israel is explicitly a Jewish ethnostate, so it's completely anodyne to refer to Jews when speaking of Israel. It's only a slur if you think "Jew" is a bad word, but that would reveal more about you than about Coulter.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blogPlease do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.